Cover not available

Article published In: Linguistics in the Netherlands 2022
Edited by Jorrig Vogels and Sterre Leufkens
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 39] 2022
► pp. 2–20

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

The syntax of progressive and ingressive aanhet-constructions in Dutch

 | Leiden University Centre for Linguistics (LUCL)
 | Leiden University Centre for Linguistics (LUCL)
 | Leiden University Centre for Linguistics (LUCL)
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with Leiden University.

Published online: 4 November 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00058.bog
Abstract
This paper presents a novel syntactic analysis of the much-debated Dutch aanhet-construction, e.g. Pieter is aan het opruimen ‘lit. Peter is on the cleanup: Peter is cleaning up’. We show that the construction’s syntactic behavior varies with the matrix verb: progressive zijn ‘be’ versus ingressive gaan ‘go’ and slaan ‘hit’. Based on this variation, we argue that there are two aanhet-projections occupying different synchronic positions on a functional-to-lexical cline.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous accounts
  • 3.Comparison
    • 3.1IPP
    • 3.2High IA/Prt
    • 3.3Complex verb constructions
    • 3.4Van-objects
    • 3.5R-extraction
    • 3.6Overview
  • 4.Coercion
  • 5.Analysis
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
References (36)
References
Andree, Milou. 2022. Dus ik die scriptie schrijven: Een analyse van zinnen zonder persoonsvorm. BA thesis, Leiden University.
Barbiers, Sjef, Hans Bennis & Lotte Dros-Hendriks. 2018. “Merging verb cluster variation.” Linguistic Variation 181: 144–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beliën, Maaike. 2002. “Force dynamics in static prepositions.” Perspectives on prepositions, ed. by H. Cuyckens & G. Radden. 195–209. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bogaards, Maarten. 2020. Beyond Progressive Aspect. MA thesis, Leiden University. [URL]
. Under review. “Top-down vs. bottom-up approaches to aspect.” Journal of Germanic Linguistics.
Boogaart, Ronny. 1999. Aspect and temporal ordering. PhD diss., Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
. 2016a. “Passief en progressief?” Aries netwerk: Een constructicon, ed. by R. Boogaart, S. Lensink & A. Reuneker. 32–36. Leiden: Leiden University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016b. “Leuker kunnen we het niet maken.” Taalvoutjes, 18 May 2016, [URL]
Boogaart, Ronny & Maarten Bogaards. In preparation. “Aspect.” Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst, ed. by M. Beliën. 3rd ed. Leiden: INT.
Booij, Geert. 2008. “Constructional idioms as products of linguistic change.” Constructions and language change, ed. by A. Bergs & G. Diewald. 79–104. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans. 2013. Syntax of Dutch: Adpositions and Adpositional Phrases. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans, Norbert Corver & Riet Vos. 2015. Syntax of Dutch: Verbs and Verb Phrases, Volume 11. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans & Norbert Corver. 2015. Syntax of Dutch: Verbs and Verb Phrases, Volume 21. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. “The expressive en maar-construction.” Crossroad Semantics, ed. by H. Reckman, L. Cheng, M. Hijzelendoorn & R. Sybesma. 305–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cavirani-Pots, Cora. 2020. Roots in progress. PhD diss., KU Leuven.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coppen, Peter-Arno. 2006. “Aan het discussiëren met docenten.” Taalprof Plein, 12 December 2006, [URL]
. 2009. Leren tasten in het duister. Inaugural lecture, Radboud University Nijmegen. [URL]
. 2021. “Het grootste ontleedmysterie.” Onze Taal 90(9): 33.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coussé, Evie & Gerlof Bouma. 2022. “Semantic scope restrictions in complex verb constructions in Dutch.” Linguistics 601: 123–176. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Felser, Claudia. 2000. “Aspectual complement clauses and the (un-)availability of Verb Raising.” Verbal projections, ed. by H. Janßen. 163–193. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 1993. The rise of functional categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 2005. Words and structure. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij & Maarten van den Toorn. (eds.). 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. 2nd ed. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
IJbema, Aniek. 2003. “Grammaticalization and reanalysis in Dutch aspectual constructions.” Unpublished Ms., Universität Leipzig. [URL]
Lemmens, Maarten. 2015. “Zit je te denken of ben je aan het piekeren? Persistentie in het synchrone gebruik van de PREP- en POS-progressiefconstructies in het Nederlands.” Nederlandse Taalkunde 201: 5–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura. 2004. “Type shifting in construction grammar.” Cognitive Linguistics 151: 1–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moens, Marc & Mark Steedman. 1988. “Temporal ontology and temporal reference.” Computational Linguistics 141: 15–28.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schuurman, Ineke & Annet Wierenga. 1986. “Syntactische nomen-incorporatie bij infinitieven en deelwoorden.” Tabu 161: 339–350.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smits, Rik. 1987. “Over de aan het constructie, lexicale morfologie en casustheorie.” Grammaticaliteiten, ed. by N. Corver & J. Koster. 273–329. Tilburg: KU Brabant.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Swart, Henriëtte. 1998. “Aspect shift and coercion.” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 161: 347–385. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Pottelberge, Jeroen. 2004. Der am-Progressiv. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 1992. “Praxis of Linguistics: Passives in Dutch.” Cognitive Linguistics 31: 301–342. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2011. The Syntax of Dutch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Bogaards, Maarten & Roné Wierenga
2025. Aspectual cognate constructions in Afrikaans and Dutch. In Dutch and Contact Linguistics [IMPACT: Studies in Language, Culture and Society, 55], ► pp. 278 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue